4 ms·

It's strange how you're both listing the ways this statute denies the accused due process as if that made the law valid. As if merely saying that this law doesn

It's strange how you're both listing the ways this statute denies the accused due process as if that made the law valid. As if merely saying that this law doesn't require due process makes it so. To me, those are all the reasons this law is unconstitutional. New York shouldn't be able to simply write a law that ignores due process in the prosecution of some other alleged crime. Put aside your feelings about Trump and ask yourself if that's a situation you'd like to find yourself in: accused of a laundry list of crimes and convicted even if the jury doesn't agree on which one you committed.

shadowgovt 2y ago
The jury all agree he committed a crime while attempting to commit another crime. They don't have to agree on what what crime, precisely, he was attempting to commit. Due process doesn't really enter into it because he wasn't accused of successfully accomplishing the other crime, merely of attempting one. This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy. OJ wasn't "found guilty of wrongful death". He was found liable, because that was a civil case, not a criminal one. That difference is also why double jeopardy didn't apply. I can't really discuss due process with someone who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    You are correct, which highlights the way in which common sense can deviate from the actual application of law in an English-common-law-derived system. The common sense idea would be that investigating the same fact pattern twice would be trying the same crime twice. The actual law does not agree with that assessment for the reason you have indicated. Due process doesn't prevent you from being found innocent of a crime and liable on a civil case on the same set of actions, and it (apparently) doesn't prevent you from being found guilty of falsifying documents to attempt a crime without requiring the jury to agree on what crime was attempted.
nobody9999 2y ago
>To me, those are all the reasons this law is unconstitutional. New York shouldn't be able to simply write a law that ignores due process in the prosecution of some other alleged crime. It seems that this trial is just one of many[0] (in fact, such felony cases under this law aren't uncommon at all and no one has successfully made your argument in appeals of cases where this specific law[1] was applied. Perhaps you could get in touch with one of your former law professors to clarify your reasoning (you are actually a constitutional lawyer, or at least attended law school, right?), as it doesn't seem to comport with the jurisprudence of New York and/or Federal courts. [0] https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-felony-prosecutions-for-falsifying-business-records/ https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-f... [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
- leereeves 2y ago
  31 cases in 15 years is hardly proof that "such felony cases under this law aren't uncommon at all". And that document doesn't say whether the second crime was actually charged in any of those cases. It could well be that in those other cases, due process was observed, the other crime was charged, and the objection I raised here did not apply. That was true in the first case discussed in the link, The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz. "He and his company, Epic Auto Repair Corporation, were indicted on second-degree Tax Fraud, two counts of third-degree Tax Fraud, and two counts of fourth-degree Tax Fraud." https://www.bronxda.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/pr/2022/102-2022-Josue-Aguilar-indicted-fraud-bronx-tax-.pdf https://www.bronxda.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/pr/2022/102-2022-J... I'll let you check the others, if you like.
vharuck 2y ago
Trump's case, were he innocent, wouldn't have been hard to win. Even if the prosecution alleged there were 100 possible crimes Trump tried to cover up with false documentation, the defense would only need to provide one reasonable intent that wasn't a crime. That would provide reasonable doubt. The prosecution won this case by focusing on a specific crime the false documents were meant to conceal and providing a lot of evidence as to Trump's intent. The defense didn't offer a reasonable alternative intent for the false documents. Intent is usually very hard to prove in court, so it should be reassuring that this law has such a guardrail against abuse.
- leereeves 2y ago
  They did not focus "on a specific crime the false documents were meant to conceal". They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require them to declare that he had committed any of those crimes, let alone agree on which. If some of the jurors simply believed that "hush money" is illegal (as many people do), they could have convicted on that basis. Each of the alleged crimes has subtle details that separate it from the perfectly legal practice of paying someone for non-disclosure. By failing to charge a specific crime, the prosecution avoided discussing those details. Ask yourself: why didn't the prosecution charge Trump with violating 17-152, and avoid this issue? Could it be because they didn't think they would win such a charge?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    > They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require them to declare that he had committed any of those crimes The crime he was convicted of requires proof he falsified documents to attempt to commit those other crimes, not that he succeeded. He doesn't have to be guilty of another crime to be guilty of felony record falsification in attempt to commit another crime. And the statute doesn't require the jury to agree on what crime was attempted. That's a finding of fact left to the jury, but each juror may choose which scenario is most likely; you can't play the scenarios off each other as reasonable doubt if at least one of them is what happened in each juror's individual best judgment.

shadowgovt 2y ago

The jury all agree he committed a crime while attempting to commit another crime. They don't have to agree on what what crime, precisely, he was attempting to commit. Due process doesn't really enter into it because he wasn't accused of successfully accomplishing the other crime, merely of attempting one. This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy.

leereeves 2y ago
> This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy. OJ wasn't "found guilty of wrongful death". He was found liable, because that was a civil case, not a criminal one. That difference is also why double jeopardy didn't apply. I can't really discuss due process with someone who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  You are correct, which highlights the way in which common sense can deviate from the actual application of law in an English-common-law-derived system. The common sense idea would be that investigating the same fact pattern twice would be trying the same crime twice. The actual law does not agree with that assessment for the reason you have indicated. Due process doesn't prevent you from being found innocent of a crime and liable on a civil case on the same set of actions, and it (apparently) doesn't prevent you from being found guilty of falsifying documents to attempt a crime without requiring the jury to agree on what crime was attempted.

nobody9999 2y ago

>To me, those are all the reasons this law is unconstitutional. New York shouldn't be able to simply write a law that ignores due process in the prosecution of some other alleged crime. It seems that this trial is just one of many[0] (in fact, such felony cases under this law aren't uncommon at all and no one has successfully made your argument in appeals of cases where this specific law[1] was applied. Perhaps you could get in touch with one of your former law professors to clarify your reasoning (you are actually a constitutional lawyer, or at least attended law school, right?), as it doesn't seem to comport with the jurisprudence of New York and/or Federal courts. [0] https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-felony-prosecutions-for-falsifying-business-records/ https://www.justsecurity.org/85605/survey-of-past-new-york-f... [1] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

leereeves 2y ago
31 cases in 15 years is hardly proof that "such felony cases under this law aren't uncommon at all". And that document doesn't say whether the second crime was actually charged in any of those cases. It could well be that in those other cases, due process was observed, the other crime was charged, and the objection I raised here did not apply. That was true in the first case discussed in the link, The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz. "He and his company, Epic Auto Repair Corporation, were indicted on second-degree Tax Fraud, two counts of third-degree Tax Fraud, and two counts of fourth-degree Tax Fraud." https://www.bronxda.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/pr/2022/102-2022-Josue-Aguilar-indicted-fraud-bronx-tax-.pdf https://www.bronxda.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/pr/2022/102-2022-J... I'll let you check the others, if you like.

vharuck 2y ago

Trump's case, were he innocent, wouldn't have been hard to win. Even if the prosecution alleged there were 100 possible crimes Trump tried to cover up with false documentation, the defense would only need to provide one reasonable intent that wasn't a crime. That would provide reasonable doubt. The prosecution won this case by focusing on a specific crime the false documents were meant to conceal and providing a lot of evidence as to Trump's intent. The defense didn't offer a reasonable alternative intent for the false documents. Intent is usually very hard to prove in court, so it should be reassuring that this law has such a guardrail against abuse.

leereeves 2y ago
They did not focus "on a specific crime the false documents were meant to conceal". They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require them to declare that he had committed any of those crimes, let alone agree on which. If some of the jurors simply believed that "hush money" is illegal (as many people do), they could have convicted on that basis. Each of the alleged crimes has subtle details that separate it from the perfectly legal practice of paying someone for non-disclosure. By failing to charge a specific crime, the prosecution avoided discussing those details. Ask yourself: why didn't the prosecution charge Trump with violating 17-152, and avoid this issue? Could it be because they didn't think they would win such a charge?
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  > They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require them to declare that he had committed any of those crimes The crime he was convicted of requires proof he falsified documents to attempt to commit those other crimes, not that he succeeded. He doesn't have to be guilty of another crime to be guilty of felony record falsification in attempt to commit another crime. And the statute doesn't require the jury to agree on what crime was attempted. That's a finding of fact left to the jury, but each juror may choose which scenario is most likely; you can't play the scenarios off each other as reasonable doubt if at least one of them is what happened in each juror's individual best judgment.